Keith Rix / 17 April 2024 / Categories: Case Updates R v Valdo Calocane, The Crown Court at Nottingham, 25 January 2024, unreported The case of Valdo Calocane, convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter, has brought to the public’s attention the role of expert psychiatric witnesses in cases of alleged murder. The context has been, and will be for some time, the intense public interest in the horrific killing of three people and the attempted murder of three others, all unknown to the offender, in Nottingham. The case raises a number of issues about the role of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings, mental condition defences and the meaning of public interest. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login Print 374 Tags: PsychiatryDuty to the courtInterviewing witnessesPublic interest More links Link to the HMCPSI Report Related articles An expert who oversteps their role puts their evidence at risk Experts making the evidence fit their own conclusions do not meet their duty to the Court A (Article 13(b): Mental Ill-health) [2023] EWHC 2082 (Fam) Ogonowska, R v (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Crim 1021 GB, Re (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation) [2023] EWFC 150 Comments are only visible to subscribers.